On 08/21/2014 02:39 PM, gordon chung wrote:
> The point I've been making is
> that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer project as the
> OpenStack Way of Metering, I think we do a disservice to our users by
> picking a winner in a space that is clearly still unsettled.

can we avoid using the word 'blessed' -- it's extremely vague and seems controversial. from what i know, no one is being told project x's services are the be all end all and based on experience, companies (should) know this. i've worked with other alternatives even though i contribute to ceilometer.
> Totally agree with Jay here, I know people who gave up on trying to
> get any official project around deployment because they were told they
> had to do it under the TripleO umbrella
from the pov of a project that seems to be brought up constantly and maybe it's my naivety, i don't really understand the fascination with branding and the stigma people have placed on non-'openstack'/stackforge projects. it can't be a legal thing because i've gone through that potential mess. also, it's just as easy to contribute to 'non-openstack' projects as 'openstack' projects (even easier if we're honest).
Yes, we should be honest. The "even easier" part is what Sandy cited as the primary motivation for pursuing stacktach instead of ceilometer.

I think we need to consider the difference between why OpenStack wants to bless a project, and why a project might want to be blessed by OpenStack. Many folks believe that for OpenStack to be successful it needs to present itself as a stack that can be tested and deployed, not a sack of parts that only the most extremely clever people can manage to assemble into an actual cloud. In order to have such a stack, some code (or, alternatively, dare I say API...) needs to be blessed. Reasonable debates will continue about which pieces are essential to this stack, and which should be left to deployers, but metering was seen as such a component and therefore something needed to be blessed. The hope was that every one would jump on that and make it great but it seems that didn't quite happen (at least yet).

Though Open Source has many advantages over proprietary development, the ability to choose a direction and marshal resources for efficient delivery is the biggest advantage of proprietary development like what AWS does. The TC process of blessing is, IMO, an attempt to compensate for that in an OpenSource project. Of course if the wrong code is blessed, the negative impact can be significant. Blessing APIs would be more forgiving, though with its own perils. I am reminded of this session, in which Jay was involved, at my first OpenStack summit: http://essexdesignsummit.sched.org/event/66f38d3bb4a1b8b169b81179e7f03215#.U_ZLI3Wx02Q

As for why projects have a desire to be blessed, I suspect in many cases it is because the OpenStack brand will attract contributors to their project.


in my mind, the goal of the programs is to encourage collaboration from projects with the same focus (whether they overlap or not). that way, even if there's differences in goal/implementation, there's a common space between them so users can easily decide. also, hopefully with the collaboration, it'll help teams realise that certain problems have already been solved and certain parts of code can be shared rather than having project x, y, and z all working in segregated streams, racing as fast as they can to claim supremacy (how you'd decide is another mess) and then n number of months/years later we decide to throw away (tens/hundreds) of thousands of person hours of work because we just created massive projects that overlap.

suggestion: maybe it's better to drop the branding codenames and just refer to everything as their generic feature? ie. identity, telemetry, orchestration, etc...


OpenStack-dev mailing list

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to